Appeal No. 2001-0107
Application No. 09/143,505
does Appellant dispute that Kondo teaches the use of an exposure
mask in the exposure of a photosensitive glass. (Id. at 7–8.)
Appellant maintains, however, that Kondo does not disclose any of
the limitations required by the claims. (Id. at 8.) Appellant
urges that the examiner has failed to show any teaching or
motivation in these references as to where or how to position
Kondo’s mask in relation to Noguchi’s substrate, or how such a
combination would operate. (Id. at 9.) Moreover, Appellant
urges that Noguchi teaches a scanning system, and that therefore
the mask need not cover the entire substrate, but could be
relatively small, demonstrating the failure of the examiner’s
reliance on inherency. (Brief at 11.)
Appellant also argues that the examiner’s theory of
inherency is flawed because there is no showing that the claimed
system would necessarily substantially block annealing byproducts
from reaching the chamber window. (Id. at 9–10.) Specifically,
Appellant urges that the examiner has assumed incorrectly that
the byproducts travel in a straight line, whereas vaporized
byproducts need not do so. (Id. at 10.) Therefore, argues
Appellant, “merely placing a mask somewhere ‘directly above’ a
[sic] amorphous silicon surface would not inherently - block such
contaminants from reaching the window.” (Id., emphasis original)
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007